Hawaii cannot produce your coffee, for example. — ssu

Yea. Americans will just pay more for coffee. We're going to have that coffee though. We can't function without it.

So I think that this isn't just a reddit crowd, this is just common sense. — ssu

Yes, but they're like economics professors, so a tad more reliable than average.

Besides, if everything that is imported is for Americans will be at least 10% higher, how would that help the economy, where the American consumer already has doubts about the future? — ssu

The point wasn't to help the economy. Do you remember what Trump actually said the point of the tariffs was?

So much is being spent, especially on ideas of returning the sick to work, even though unemployment is rising as job losses are proposed in the NHS and civil service. — Jack Cummins

The US went through the same thing. My old hospital, which had struggled for a while, finally went under after the pandemic. It was bought out by a bigger system. Then that whole system was bought by an even bigger one. The central office for the mega-entity I work for is several states away now. It was actually beneficial for me, because I had been through many waves of austerity (hiring freezes, no vacation) while my hospital was independent. That seems to have passed now.

It's not really a bad thing to restructure from time to time. The whole history of medicine since WW2 has been one of backing off unnecessary testing, replacing invasive interventions with non-invasive ones, and placing a super high priority on protecting patients from hospital acquired infections. All of that has been assisted by financial pressure (in our case from Medicare). What's happened is that during those decades of intensive testing, physicians learned a lot about various disease mechanisms. They discovered that once that knowledge went into successful strategies, all the testing wasn't really necessary anymore. I'm sure the UK has been on that same trail for a while, but it's an evolving thing. There may still be some changes in priorities that have needed to happen.

Lefebvre is clear: liberalism doesn’t pretend to be metaphysically deep. What it offers instead is an ethic of mutual forbearance — Banno

I think John Locke's point was that if we believe that the One Truth is discoverable by rational means, we'll never be at peace, because people come up with different formulations. It's better to start with mutual respect. If you're a protestant, it's none of your business what Catholics think.

Yes and the only way is down from now on. Until he’s kicked out of office. — Punshhh

What do you mean "down"?

It's been noted (by the reddit crowd) that tariffs can't bring in revenue and simultaneously increase incentives to manufacture in the US. Those are the two things the administration identified as the goals of the tariffs. If some entity wants to negotiate better access to the American market, they can, but that doesn't really work as a goal of the tariffs. From the US's point of view, it doesn't matter how an entity is paying for access, with tariffs or by smooching Trump's butt. They're still paying more than they were.

As a longtime observer of American shenanigans, I can tell you that the first step is always to look on the surface. Look at what the president actually says. If you look too deeply, you'll miss it. There is no deep state.

Here's the rub: What's the alternative? — Banno

Dictatorship

He said this 6 days ago:

Speaking at a Republican Party dinner in Washington, Trump acknowledged the 104% rate for China "sounds ridiculous" but insisted that Beijing wanted to "make a deal" to avoid it.

But here, he's not saying that the point of the tariffs was to make a deal with China. He's saying that China wants to end the trade war. I honestly don't think he has framed the latest tariffs as a method of extortion. I think he truly wants to shut down imports. But I learn something new everyday. :cool:

That's precisely the sort of irrationality and intransigence that justifies dismissal. — Leontiskos

What do you think counts as acceptable justification for belief?

Having sound arguments is only one kind of acceptable justification. There are others.
— frank

I think you're nitpicking. — Leontiskos

Having sound arguments is only one kind of acceptable justification for belief.

Trump is going to do a great deal apparently. It was only posturing prior to a negotiation — Punshhh

I missed that. Do you know when Trump mentioned it?

Everyone they spoke to said they have already stopped all trade with the U.S. — Punshhh

That makes sense.

So if you can only rationally accede to an expert if you presume that they possess sound arguments, then you cannot accede to an expert regarding the proposition, "Do not kill the innocent," while simultaneously claiming that such propositions are not rational (i.e. cannot be the conclusion of a sound argument). — Leontiskos

Having sound arguments is only one kind of acceptable justification. There are others.

If you believe P without justification, your belief is irrational.

Rationality is not a property of statements or propositions. It's a property of behavior and belief.

If you believe P without justification, your belief is irrational.

More simply, if you continue maintain that the only possible support for a proposition like, "Do not kill the innocent," is rationalization, — Leontiskos

I've never maintained that.

In your case the question would be: Okay, so then you don't think, "Do not kill the innocent," is the conclusion of a sound argument? — Leontiskos

I believe that time slows down (relatively) near a black hole. I don't have a sound argument for it, though. I just know that's what experts say. Most would consider my belief rational. I have a good reason to believe it. Other rational bases for belief would be things like direct observation, some use of logic, or that everybody believes P. Believing P for emotional reasons isn't usually considered rational.

If you believe X because experts attest to it, but you simultaneously deny that the experts could have any sound arguments to hand, then you are being irrational. — Leontiskos

I guess. Experts are expected to have evidence, though.

Okay, so then you don't think, "Do not kill the innocent," is a rational statement? — Leontiskos

I don't think rational is a property of statements. It's about the way a person believes or behaves. You believe P rationally if you have a decent reason to believe it. But the bar doesn't have to be particularly high. If you believe P because experts agree that P, then you're behaving rationally, and your belief is rational.

Until that happens, enjoy the decadence. — ssu

:razz:

Actually I'm pretty happy — Mr Bee

:up:

Maybe once climate change sets in that area will become a center of civilization. The peripheral islands will be the Americana zone.

Why does Hague think Trump expected China to back down? Based on everything Trump has said, I would assume he expected them to do exactly what they did.

If you had to put your sentiments about the present situation in a nutshell, what would you point to as your main concern? Is it:

1. US withdrawal from NATO and the UN
2. Economic instability from tariffs
3. A concern about the spread of far right policies, including increased authoritarianism

Or what? I don't think I've ever seen you angry before, and you seem to be. Why exactly?

I think when you get older you get more complicated. The young revolutionary is still in there, but he has to contend with the older person who realized that calling for a revolution is calling for a huge amount of suffering, which is diabolical. So now you have an internal conversation about justice and acceptance.

Yes, but you can support liberal values and be opposed to murder. Liberalism isn't about letting people do whatever they want.

The U.S. is a laughing stock. — Punshhh

That's not a problem for Americans. Most Americans have no idea how the US appears to other countries, and don't care. They're just sort of oblivious.

And Trump now says he's going to send American citizens who have been convicted of crimes there, removing from them any possibility of appeal to the US justice systems. — Wayfarer

No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to.

Nice correction. Well done.

He's testing whether he can defy the Supreme Court and not be held to account. — Wayfarer

No he isn't. The SCOTUS said "facilitate" the return. They left out "effectuate."

You guys keep crying wolf. When the wolf shows up, you'll have nothing to say to mark the occasion.

I said morality isn't based on rationality because it supports both good and evil.

You said that if it supports evil it's being misused.

I asked how you know when rationality is being misused. You don't have an answer.

The age-old answer to this claim is that rationality can be used or misused, much like a gun. " — Leontiskos

What tells you if it's being used or misused? A rational argument?

A pessimistic view is that capitalists need freedom to operate, so they champion liberalism because it diminishes religious and governmental interference.

This is art by Kelly Boesch.

A sound bridge between rationality and emotive morality may be useful. That is because without the rational, we may end up with 'herd instinct'. Morality based on rationality or emotion alone may too narrow in scope. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Maybe a person works better as a whole: letting the mind temper the heart.

I do not deny Nietzsche's argument or the issues of relativism. Nevertheless, what may be happening is a 'fashion' or slippery rope argument whereby the right to express hatred is being justified. — Jack Cummins

That may be true, but such justifications tend to be supremely rational. Rationality is not a guide to moral behavior. If anything, rationality is something to be wary of.

Here, I am wondering about philosophy as being about the pursuit of wisdom for living. — Jack Cummins

This is the crux of the matter. There isn't just one kind of life. In some environments, you'll have to be racist to thrive. In other environments, racism will get you ostracized. As Nietzsche pointed out, your tribe's morality is relative to the kind of society they have created.

one possible measure which holds up to rationality is the idea of respect for others in general. — Jack Cummins

It's also possible to rationalize disrespect for others in general. I think that's why morality isn't based on rationality. People naturally rationalize whatever they're doing. Rationality is kind of like fashion.

The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne. — unenlightened

I read this during a rainy November vacation on the east coast not too far from the setting of the book. Grey days looking out on a grey ocean, thinking about Hawthorne's message: that when rationality is pitted against nature, it will lose.

In Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman, the main character says she has set herself beyond the pale. This is related to her taking hikes in the woods in spite of being a single woman. Apparently in Victorian England that's all it took, and being beyond the pale came with potentially harsh consequences.

American society doesn't have anything to compare with that. You can't set yourself beyond the pale because no matter how bizarre you are, someone has you beat.

So the answer to the OP is: use the quaint terminology however you like.

They're going to have a labor crisis in a few months and all the immigrant stuff should subside. For a while.

Fascists seek to return greatness via the invigorating effects of warfare.

I’m not interested in a revolution. — Joshs

I have been for a while now. I was born at the wrong time. And you sir are no leftist.

What would you do if you were a university president threatened with loss of grant money, or a news service or law firm threatened with loss of access? Would you fight back or acquiesce? — Joshs

Fight back how? Through the courts? Or standing in the middle of the street with a freaking sign in my hands?

I remember when I first discovered that one of the things the 1% does with their money is control the public conversation to reinforce their position. I was so shocked I was ready for the revolution then. I remember wanting to be part of a firing squad.

Give me a revolution and I'll salute it.

wonder how many died of the 1 million who demonstrated in Puerto Rico? I’ll bet some would have thought it was worth it. — Joshs

My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country. Go Joshs. Do that protest! Quote some Hegel to them. That'll leave them befuddled.

And yet I wasn’t convinced that he is a full-blown dictator until a few months ago — Joshs

Eh, he's 78. He's going to be too tired to be a dictator in 4 years. Fortunately he's all we have to pay attention to. Nobody else. :roll: